The greatest film ever made

[zen]

1 hour ago, Stradlater said:

God 2001 was so slow and painful to watch. Don't get me wrong. I know it's supposed to be a classic with deep symbolism and sh!t but it somehow just didn't do that for me. 

 

IMO A clockwork orange was Kubrick's best work. A seminal piece of art. 

I understand as I have gone through that phase as well.  At times, you need to be in a certain (focused) mood to watch these type of films. 
 

I have 2001 on 4k UHD (one of the best 4K transfers. Restoration overseen by Nolan iirc). If I have to just pick a 4k movie from my collection to watch randomly, it would probably be a Matrix, Inception, etc. These films have more “masala” elements relatively 

 

But evaluating as a movie, 2001 is simply brilliant and a work of art. When I watch it (when in the right mood), it makes me wonder (at times with mouth open) as to what has been achieved. Kubrick also used relatively less dialogue in the film .... Similarly for Barry Lyndon, which I have on a Criterion (premium transfer) Blu Ray. I can’t pick it up to watch it randomly (which is my shortcoming not the film’s). But that film is awesome.  For certain indoor scenes, Kubrick used candles to light the sequences for an authentic appearance. A special Zeiss lens (designed for NASA iirc) was used to capture the light optimally. At times, he is said to have cancelled shooting outdoors as the light was not right (what he was seeking). As a result of this kind of persistence, every frame in that film is a piece of art (again not surprising as Kubrick studied art and customs from that period before filming it. In fact, he had planned to make a film on Napoleon but could not pursue that project)

Edited February 15, 2020 by zen

[MechEng]

Rocky 1 

[Straight Drive]

Sholay followed by Mera Naam Joker

[zen]

2 hours ago, Param Mastishk Pheeka said:

Let's change direction a bit here:

 

Greatest Indian movie ever made?

 

From a technical standpoint (none of which I understand) there may be many movies better than this one, but I pick Tare Zameen Par.  Just a beautiful depiction of real-life problems.  

A thread on Bollywood's most impactful (not necessarily greatest) films: Link

[zen]

The making of the "mirage" scene in Lawrence of Arabia, which Spelsberg has described as a miracle:

 

 

[zen]

PS Dilip Kumar was also considered for the Omar Sheriff's role. Did Dilip Shaeeb decline or the role eventually went to Omar?

 

I.S. Johar plays Gasim in it. 

Edited February 15, 2020 by zen

[Ranvir]

18 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

T2 at best can be compared to movies like Avatar. A trend setter at that time in terms of technology and special effects.

 

I tried to watch Avatar again recently  and slept through half way in to the movie. It was that boring.

 

T2 I agree is a lot more fast paced and entertaining. It’s a trend setter but Arnold’s performance as iconic as it was feels Like a caricature much like Al Pacino in Scarface. 

 

There is a difference of being a trend setter and being a great movie that covers all aspects.

 

For example Jurassic park is obviously an iconic movie, how many performances do you remember apart from the Trex?

 

Shawshank is leagues ahead of T2 as a total package.

I wouldn't call Arnold's performance a caricature, he's playing a robot. How else do you expect him to act? It was nice subtle acting. Pacino on the other hand has been hamming it up since Scarface. He's shouted his way through Scent of a woman, Heat, Devil's Advocate and many other roles. I read that Francis Ford Coppola was one of the few directors who had the balls to tell Pacino to calm down and not go over the top. I guess it helped that Pacino was not a big star when The Godfather came out, subsequent director's didnt have the courage to do the same.

 

Back to T2, Edward Furlong gave an amazing performance as John Connor considering he was only 13 years old and Linda Hamilton was also great as Sarah Connor. T2 is not just a special effects movie like Avatar and Jurassic Park, the storyline has much more of a human element. It's not just robots fighting each other like Transformers. It is in my opinion the greatest action movie and greatest science fiction movie of all time. It still feels fresh today which shows just how good the direction, cinematography and special effects are.

[zen]

4 hours ago, Ranvir said:

It was nice subtle acting. Pacino on the other hand has been hamming it up since Scarface.

 I guess that mentioning T2 as the “greatest” film was not enough so now Arnold’s performance is nice subtle and Pacino’s in Scarface is overacting! 

 

Most folks will go to watch Scarface for Pacino, though his character was much like a loser in the film. 
 

Indian legends such as Amitabh incorporated shades of Pacino’s character (acting) in  Agnipath (based on Scarface). That kind of acting works in gangster films!

On one hand, Arnold was wooden in T2 but robots can be like that. On the other hand, Pacino overacted in Scarface when that kind of acting works in gangster films. 

Edited February 16, 2020 by zen

[Ranvir]

41 minutes ago, zen said:

 I guess that mentioning T2 as the “greatest” film was not enough so now Arnold’s performance is nice subtle and Pacino’s in Scarface is overacting! 

 

Most folks will go to watch Scarface for Pacino, though his character was much like a loser in the film. 
 

Indian Legends such as Amitabh incorporated shades of Pacino’s character (acting) in  Agnipath (based on Scarface). That kind of acting works in gangster films!
 

What else would you call Arnold's acting in T2? He's playing a robot! There's not much he can do.He has minimal acting skills but they were perfect for that role. It is the acting of Edward Furlong and Linda Hamilton that carries the movie, Arnold is pretty much just an important prop.

 

I loved Scarface when I was 20 years old but now I'm in my 30s I can see that it's way over the top. It's still an entertaining movie however there's a reason why dumb rappers and illiterate criminals worship that film, the whole over the top machismo appeals to them. Tony Montana literally is a cartoon character. It's hamming of the highest order.  Google Scarface Overacting and see how many hits you get. Al Pacino from the 80s onwards would not be out of place in a 90s Bollywood film.

 

 

If you want to see good gangster acting have a look at Ray Liotta in Goodfellas, James Gandolfini in The Sopranos, Chazz Palminteri in A Bronx Tale.

[zen]

34 minutes ago, Ranvir said:

What else would you call Arnold's acting in T2? He's playing a robot! There's not much he can do.He has minimal acting skills but they were perfect for that role. It is the acting of Edward Furlong and Linda Hamilton that carries the movie, Arnold is pretty much just an important prop.

 

I loved Scarface when I was 20 years old but now I'm in my 30s I can see that it's way over the top. It's still an entertaining movie however there's a reason why dumb rappers and illiterate criminals worship that film, the whole over the top machismo appeals to them. Tony Montana literally is a cartoon character. It's hamming of the highest order.  Google Scarface Overacting and see how many hits you get. Al Pacino from the 80s onwards would not be out of place in a 90s Bollywood film.

The point is we can't be like "Arnold was wooden in T2 but robots can be like that.  Pacino overacted in Scarface (when that kind of acting works in gangster films)." 

 

I do not need to google. I own Scarface in 4k. 

 

And you are posting Pacino's video as if Arnold's performance was praised (or seen as some kind of a benchmark) in T2 (people probably do not even rate Arnold as an actor to comment on it)

 

Quote

If you want to see good gangster acting have a look at Ray Liotta in Goodfellas, James Gandolfini in The Sopranos, Chazz Palminteri in A Bronx Tale.

You focused on Ray Liotta (a wooden performance relatively) and ignored Joe Pesci, who won an Oscar, in the same film:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by zen

[Global.Baba]

32 minutes ago, zen said:

And then you are focused on Ray Liotta (a wooden performance relatively) and ignore Joe Pesci, who won an Oscar, in the same film:

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with everything else except for this part on Liotta’s performance. It was very measured and I think it was purposely underplayed and that’s what highlights Deniro and Pesci’s performance even more.

 

That’s an old acting trope playing the straight guy to the other eccentric characters around him.

[zen]

Just now, Global.Baba said:

I agree with everything else except for this part on Liotta’s performance. It was very measured and I think it was purposely underplayed and that’s what highlights Deniro and Pesci’s performance even more.

 

That’s an old acting trope playing the straight guy to the other eccentric characters around him.

I did not criticize Liotta’s performance but called it “wooden” relative to Pesci’s 

[Ranvir]

14 minutes ago, zen said:

The point is we can't be like "Arnold was wooden in T2 but robots can be like that.  Pacino overacted in Scarface (when that kind of acting works in gangster films)." 

 

I do not need to google. I own Scarface in 4k. 

 

And you are posting Pacino's video as if Arnold's performance was praised (or seen as some kind of a benchmark) in T2 (people probably do not even rate Arnold as an actor to comment on it)

 

And then you are focused on Ray Liotta (a wooden performance relatively) and ignore Joe Pesci, who won an Oscar, in the same film:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you read my posts properly you will not see me saying that Arnold gave an amazing performance, he did what was required for the role, it is Hamilton and Furlong who deliver the acting chops in the movie. Arnold is just there to look big and imposing. Robots are emotionless and so his wooden acting was perfect for the role. He was not highly criticised for his performance when T2 came out. T2 was lauded as a masterpiece when it was released. Scarface and Pacino on the other hand were slated by the critics in 1982.

 

So you own Scarface in 4K, wow that means that whatever you think about the movie is true and is agreed by most of the critics.

I see Scarface as almost a comedy compared to film like Goodfellas.

 

Ray Liotta was not wooden, it's just that you like loud shouty acting. 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

 

Relatively "young" film compared to the ones listed in the thread but watch this zoom up the greatest film ever lists now that Bong is well known in the west.

[zen]

57 minutes ago, Ranvir said:

 

If you read my posts properly you will not see me saying that Arnold gave an amazing performance, he did what was required for the role, it is Hamilton and Furlong who deliver the acting chops in the movie. Arnold is just there to look big and imposing. Robots are emotionless and so his wooden acting was perfect for the role. He was not highly criticised for his performance when T2 came out. 

 

I understand that you are using "convenient" arguments. Like not comparing the lead characters. If you want to bring in other characters, Scarface has Pfeiffer and Mastrantonio as well. "Sosa" is good in it too 

 

 

 

PS if you look at Pacino above, he would eat the lemon from the finger bowl. That is how the character is!

 

Quote

T2 was lauded as a masterpiece when it was released. Scarface and Pacino on the other hand were slated by the critics in 1982.

I am not claiming that Scarface is the "greatest". It is a good to great film (depending upon perspective). If I have to choose b/w watching T2 and Scarface, I would prefer Scarface, which is considered as a classic. 

 

Talking about T2, in its genre, it is sandwiched b/w Blade Runner (1982), which has aged "relatively" well despite released almost 10 years before, and Matrix (1999), which is as good if not better than T2. 

 

Talking about Sci-Fi films, a poll by Rolling Stone for e.g.: https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-lists/readers-poll-the-10-best-science-fiction-movies-148210/alien-8-96588/  

 

So yeah, when T2 was released, it looked good but do not rate it as high as some of the other films in its genre now esp. since T2 has not aged as well (again relatively speaking) 

 

Quote

 

So you own Scarface in 4K, wow that means that whatever you think about the movie is true and is agreed by most of the critics.

I see Scarface as almost a comedy compared to film like Goodfellas.

 

Ray Liotta was not wooden, it's just that you like loud shouty acting. 

 

No one has claimed Scarface is better than Goodfellas or vice versa (except you at this point if I am not wrong). Both are good in their own right. There is Casino too, which I also own in 4k and like. 

 

"Relative" to Pesci's performance, which won an Oscar, Liotta's is wooden. Performance depends upon the role, the flavor needed, and the nature of the film. Hope you do not expect every character to be played like Arnold of T2 in every film  

 

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by zen

[zen]

Saying that T2 is the greatest film of AT is like Arnold attempting to smile in it:

 

 

[First class]

On 2/14/2020 at 12:51 AM, Gollum said:

I liked Ben-Hur more. 

Me too.

[Ranvir]

1 hour ago, zen said:

I understand that you are using "convenient" arguments. Like not comparing the lead characters. If you want to bring in other characters, Scarface has Pfeiffer and Mastrantonio as well. "Sosa" is good in it too 

 

 

 

PS if you look at Pacino above, he would eat the lemon from the finger bowl. That is how the character is!

 

I am not claiming that Scarface is the "greatest". It is a good to great film (depending upon perspective). If I have to choose b/w watching T2 and Scarface, I would prefer Scarface, which is considered as a classic. 

 

Talking about T2, in its genre, it is sandwiched b/w Blade Runner (1982), which has aged "relatively" well despite released almost 10 years before, and Matrix (1999), which is as good if not better than T2. 

 

Talking about Sci-Fi films, a poll by Rolling Stone for e.g.: https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-lists/readers-poll-the-10-best-science-fiction-movies-148210/alien-8-96588/  

 

So yeah, when T2 was released, it looked good but do not rate it as high as some of the other films in its genre now esp. since T2 has not aged as well (again relatively speaking) 

 

No one has claimed Scarface is better than Goodfellas or vice versa (except you at this point if I am not wrong). Both are good in their own right. There is Casino too, which I also own in 4k and like. 

 

"Relative" to Pesci's performance, which won an Oscar, Liotta's is wooden. Performance depends upon the role, the flavor needed, and the nature of the film. Hope you do not expect every character to be played like Arnold of T2 in every film  

 

 

Pfeiffer was awful. Steven Bauer was like a clown the whole movie, Sosa was probably the only realistic depiction of a criminal in that movie. The character Pesci was playing in Goodfellas was based on a real life lunatic whereas Liotta's character was relatively straight in comparison. That is why Liotta was calmer in comparison, no way can you call that wooden. Wooden is for people like Keanu Reeves and Johnny Depp.

 

The Matrix in my opinion has aged worse than T2. It just tried too hard to be cool with the weird way Morpheus, Trinity and Smith speak, the outfits that no one wore at the time and don't wear now, people doing kung fu in the air, over reliance on trendy songs. The story also seems to be a rip off of T2, machines vs humans, a saviour figure to save humanity.

 

Some of my points seem to be lost on you, they are not too hard to understand if you try a little. Arnold was good as an emotionless robot, do you understand? I think this is the third time I've said that. He played what was right for the role. He is never going to be an award winning actor but he acted suitably for that role. Do you expect him to chew the scenery like Pacino and Pesci?

 

Pacino for the last 40 years has been playing the same kind of character in nearly all of his movies. He won a sympathy oscar for his shouty performance in Scent of a woman.

[zen]

2 hours ago, Ranvir said:

Pfeiffer was awful. Steven Bauer was like a clown the whole movie, Sosa was probably the only realistic depiction of a criminal in that movie. The character Pesci was playing in Goodfellas was based on a real life lunatic whereas Liotta's character was relatively straight in comparison. That is why Liotta was calmer in comparison, no way can you call that wooden. Wooden is for people like Keanu Reeves and Johnny Depp.

 

 

Scarface is considered a cult classic. And "relative" to Pesci's, Liotta's performance is wooden (the scale is relative not absolute) 

 

Now if you want to criticize almost everyone in Scarface, it can be done for T2 too  .... it is just that not many care about acting performances in T2 (whether good or bad) to delve into that

 

 

Quote

The Matrix in my opinion has aged worse than T2. It just tried too hard to be cool with the weird way Morpheus, Trinity and Smith speak, the outfits that no one wore at the time and don't wear now, people doing kung fu in the air, over reliance on trendy songs. The story also seems to be a rip off of T2, machines vs humans, a saviour figure to save humanity.

 

I have Matrix on 4k too (all 3 films). In 4k, it is easier to tell how a film has aged. Matrix still feels great! 

 

And let's not forget Blade Runner, which I also own in 4k! So I know how these films look and feel now esp. in their new transfers 

 

I am not sure that you understand what "aging" of film implies. A period film could have period outfit. For e.g. Gladiator still works. Just because Crowe wears tunic, which no one wears now, it does not mean that Gladiator has not aged well  

 

 

 

Quote

Some of my points seem to be lost on you, they are not too hard to understand if you try a little. Arnold was good as an emotionless robot, do you understand? I think this is the third time I've said that. He played what was right for the role. He is never going to be an award winning actor but he acted suitably for that role. Do you expect him to chew the scenery like Pacino and Pesci?

 

As has been explained, by the same token, Pacino's performance works as a gangster ....  Now if you want to say how some ppl felt that Pacino acted badly, same can be said about Arnold too .... As pointed before, you are making convenient points 

 

"On one hand, Arnold was wooden in T2 but robots can be like that. On the other hand, Pacino overacted in Scarface when that kind of acting works in gangster films." 

 

 

Quote

Pacino for the last 40 years has been playing the same kind of character in nearly all of his movies. He won a sympathy oscar for his shouty performance in Scent of a woman.

 

We are talking about Pacino as an uncouth gangster in Scarface. Not how he acts in other gangster films 

Edited February 16, 2020 by zen

[Ranvir]

2 hours ago, zen said:

 

Scarface is considered a cult classic. And "relative" to Pesci's, Liotta's performance is wooden (the scale is relative not absolute) 

 

Now if you want to criticize almost everyone in Scarface, it can be done for T2 too  .... it is just that no many care about acting performance in T2 (whether good or bad) to delve into that

 

 

 

I have Matrix on 4k too (all 3 films). In 4k, it is easier to tell how a film has aged. Matrix still feels great! 

 

And let's not forget Blade Runner, which I also own in 4k! So I know how these films look and feel now esp. in their new transfers 

 

I am not sure that you understand what "aging" of film implies. A period film could have period outfit. For e.g. Gladiator still works. Just because Crowe wears tunic, which no one wears now, it does not mean that Gladiator has not aged well  

 

 

 

 

As I have said, by the same token, Pacino's performance works as a gangster ....  Now if you want to say how some ppl felt that Pacino acted badly, same can be said about Arnold too .... As pointed before, you are making convenient points 

 

"On one hand, Arnold was wooden in T2 but robots can be like that. On the other hand, Pacino overacted in Scarface when that kind of acting works in gangster films." 

 

 

 

We are talking about Pacino as an uncouth gangster in Scarface. Not how he acts in other gangster films 

Great logic you have. 'I have it in 4K so it is a great film'. I dont care if you have Scarface in 64K. It is a comedy film. Just look at the ending, he gets shot several times and is still standing, just like one of those bad 80s action movies. I dont care how much cocaine someone takes, they will not be standing after taking 10 gunshots. Can you imagine such a silly scene in Goodfellas or The Godfather? 

There is a reason why dumb rappers and low rent drug dealers like Scarface, it's a big loud dumb film. If anyone over the age of 30 tells me Scarface is a great film I automatically think of that person as a person of limited intellect and usually a gangsta wannabe. I will say that Scarface is an entertaining film but saying that it deserves to be on a greatest films list is far more laughable than T2 being on the same list.

 

The fact that you have the Matrix 2 and 3 in your '4K collection's shows a lot about your taste in movies. They're absolute garbage. Even more over stylised than the original.

 

You seem to have a hard time understanding basic concepts. Pesci was playing a character who was an over the top lunatic in real life. Liotta was playing a person who was more subdued. Do you expect Liotta to play Henry Hill as if he was Tommy? Use your brain. Should Anupam Kher in the accidental prime minister have played Manmohan Singh as some loud charismatic character and ignore the fact that Manmohan Singh is a quiet subdued character?

 

As for being dated, I was implying that The Matrix was over stylised and some of it looks cheesy today. No one speaks like Morpheus or Trinity, the flying kung fu is over done, the soundtrack relies too much on electronic music of the late 90s. The fashions, effects, soundtrack and style of acting of T2 feel fresher today than the Matrix.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Ranvir